News Release

News Release: News Media Availability Friday to discuss "Republican Reunion" Event

Contact: Robert S. Carney Jr., bob@RepublicanContract.com

(612) 824-4479 News groups: Capitol

For immediate release

No New Texas!

News Media Availability Friday to discuss "Republican Reunion" event to be held in Southwest Minneapolis

Pawlenty still may face moderate challenge in Republican Primary

Sviggum reacts favorably to a constitutional amendment remedy for 'activist judging'

Minneapolis, MN, July 7, 2006 – On Saturday, July 8th, at 12:00 Noon, a "Republican Reunion" event will be held in Southwest Minneapolis, at the picnic table area near the Lake Harriet Bandshell. The event is free and open to the public. Former Republicans, discouraged Republicans, and republican Republicans are especially welcome.

Bob Carney Jr., who is organizing and promoting the event, will be available at the State Capitol Friday, July 7th, from 11:00 AM to Noon, in and around the news offices in the basement, to discuss the event with the intention of generating some pre-event publicity.

Carney will also bring a one-page summary, with supporting documents, showing what has been accomplished so far in his effort to move the Republican Party in a more moderate direction. Highlights include:

* House Speaker Steve Sviggum is in general agreement with the Republican State Legislator's Contract with Voters (a two page summary of Sviggum's positions will be provided, based on a 40 minute videotaped interview, to be included in a documentary Carney is producing.)

* Speaker Sviggum is supportive of an alternative amendment to the "marriage amendment," (amendment text, an article, and Sviggum's relevant videotaped interview quotes will be provided.)

* Governor Pawlenty has not renewed the "no new taxes" pledge, and did not use the line item veto on the recent bonding bill.

The current forecast for Saturday (from Weather.com) is isolated thundershowers, and a 40% chance of rain.

Sviggum reacts to alternative "marriage amendment approach"

One interesting part of Carney's videotaped interview with Speaker Sviggum came toward the end of the interview. Below are Carney's summary of the amendment, and Sviggum's reaction to it. a copy of the one-page article Carney gave Sviggum is at the end of this news release. A edited DVD copy of this segment of the interview is available on request; it is also being prepared for download at www.RepublicanContract.com.

Carney's summary to Sviggum: "Here's the process that's outlined, I'll give you a copy of it. Essentially, whenever a Minnesota State court holds a state law unconstitutional, that there be an automatic stay for 90 days, and during that time, either House of the Legislature could petition -- 25% of the members could request an 'amendment review,' -- and if that petition is received, then the stay would hold for one Legislative session and one general election. If an amendment emerged and got passed during that time, then the court would have to simply re-hear the case based on the new amendment. So, the idea is: instead of trying to guess what a potentially 'activist' court might do, why not simply have a review built into the process by the citizens?"

Sviggum's comments in response:

"I like the thought, I like the process that you've outlined."

Regarding the amendment's effect on the current state marriage law. "Then it would just be state law, and people would feel satisfied that the state law we have would not be overturned, such as in Massachusetts."

"I think this is certainly a fallback position which is reasonable to look at. I think that it would give Minnesotans a little bit more protection against judges who would rule contrary to the law, or contrary to our interpretation of the law. I wouldn't have any problem doing this. I will also tell you I am a strong supporter of the 'marriage amendment. I do feel that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This [the alternative approach] doesn't say it's not, it doesn't say it is, it just says that if the courts were to overturn the state law, then there'd be a 90 day stay for the Legislature to address it in a proactive way at that time."

"It's an approach which I think gives some comfort, gives some assurance, and provides that if the courts awere to make a contrary decision, there's a remedy."

Purpose of the "Republican Reunion" event

"In recent years, the Republican party has become 'un-Republican' in many ways," said Carney, who is organizing and promoting the event. "It's time for Republican moderates to meet, and see what we can do to change the direction of the party, especially at the state level," said Carney.

There are two goals for the reunion:

1) To organize support for an effort to seek a commitment from Governor Tim Pawlenty to take a more moderate direction in a second term, or to find a more moderate Republican to challenge him in the Republican primary. "In considering a challenge to Pawlenty, we will also consider the significant progress that has been made so far in moving the Republican party in a more moderate direction," Carney commented.

2) To recruit moderate Republicans in Minneapolis and Saint Paul to run for the Legislature.

For more information, visit the Media Center (on the home page) at www.RepublicanContract.com

<end>

A “Stop, Look, Listen” Amendment for Minnesota's Constitution
Revised 4/10/06

Some people have attacked the current effort to amend the Minnesota Constitution to protect marriage, saying it's unnecessary, or it would unfairly single out one group.

Others disagree, and say something like this: “Look at the history of 'activist court rulings.' It's too easy for judges to claim to discover constitutional rights that most or all people didn't have in mind, and wouldn't have accepted, when the constitution was agreed to. We need to make sure marriage doesn't fall victim to this process.”

Let's consider a possible “Stop, Look, Listen” amendment that might be agreeable to both groups. Here it is:

Whenever a state court holds any non-criminal Minnesota law violates the State Constitution, the court's order shall be stayed for 90 days. If during this 90 day period the Secretary of State's office receives a Petition for Amendment Review that is signed by 25% of the members of either house of the State Legislature, the court's order shall remain stayed until the completion of a) one full Legislative session commencing after the date of the court's order, and b) one subsequent general election. During this time, in addition to the Legislative process for amending the Constitution, an amendment shall also be placed on the ballot if a petition for the amendment signed by 50,000 Minnesota voters is received by the Secretary of State's office no later than the first Monday after the first day of October prior to the general election. If any such amendment is approved, the court's order shall be vacated, and the case shall be heard again, with the approved amendment to be taken as the most relevant rule of construction for the case.

The Legislature shall implement this amendment through appropriate legislation, and may by law provide a process for consolidating multiple amendments if they are substantially consistent in effect.

To see how this would work, let's consider the hypothetical case of a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that our current marriage law is unconstitutional. Here's what would probably happen:

First, the court's ruling would be automatically stayed for 90 days.

Second, during this time, the Secretary of State would almost certainly receive a Petition for Amendment Review from 25% or more of the Legislators in either the House or the Senate. This Petition would automatically stay the court's order for one Legislative session and the general election following the session. During this time, either the Legislature, or the people directly by petition, could put a clarifying amendment on the ballot.

Third, if an amendment passed, the court would rehear the case, with the explicit instruction that the court must take the new amendment as the most relevant rule for deciding the case.

Because Minnesota courts are reasonable, we can expect that for most cases, no Petition for Amendment Review will be presented to the Secretary of State within 90 days of a court's order. In cases where a Petition for Amendment Review was submitted, but no amendment emerged, the court's order would take effect after the next general election. Except for these delays, the process would work exactly as it works today.

Let's consider why this approach should be agreeable to supporters and opponents of the current proposed amendment to protect marriage.

For supporters of a proposed marriage amendment, “Stop, Look, Listen” would let them put an amendment on the ballot if necessary, but only if necessary, to ensure Minnesota's current marriage law isn't “overruled” by an activist court. Beyond this, “Stop, Look, Listen” would give all Minnesotans protection against any and all “activist court” rulings. Isn't this better than trying to pass “pre-emptive amendments” against a list of things a court might do?

Here's a question for opponents of the proposed marriage amendment: If you think the “marriage amendment” is unnecessary, why not agree to “Stop, Look, Listen?” It doesn't single out anyone. “Stop, Look, Listen” simply provides a way for Minnesotans to be sure they don't wake up some morning to be told that their Minnesota Constitution says something that most people never intended it to say.

Like all constitutions, the Minnesota Constitution is a contract. When a court is uncertain about the meaning of a contract, there are standard, accepted ways to consider what the parties to the contract intended. The “Stop, Look, Listen” amendment is simply a way for the people of Minnesota to state our constitutional intentions more clearly, whenever necessary, to help the courts carry out their constitutional duty of interpretation.